> It is awfully hard to even formulate an argument that the New York Times isn't a journalistic organization.
I'll yield - doing so would set the bar so high that there would be no 'journalistic organizations'. To be useful, 'journalism' has to be inclusive, avoiding ruling out every organization based on its failings.
> On the other hand, it is not as difficult to formulate an argument that Wikileaks staff aren't journalists
Precisely because Wikileaks is so different from other journalistic organizations. It's very easy to choose from any number of simple criteria that separate Wikileaks from 'the rest', and then assert that this criterion is a requirement of journalists. But since we're classifying organizations based on what they do, rather than what they don't, it's awfully hard to exclude one which solicits information, analyzes facts, and publishes stories.
More connotations of journalism are speaking truth to power and critical analysis of the situation. Wikileaks does a much better job of the former, and the NYT has abdicated the latter.
I'll yield - doing so would set the bar so high that there would be no 'journalistic organizations'. To be useful, 'journalism' has to be inclusive, avoiding ruling out every organization based on its failings.
> On the other hand, it is not as difficult to formulate an argument that Wikileaks staff aren't journalists
Precisely because Wikileaks is so different from other journalistic organizations. It's very easy to choose from any number of simple criteria that separate Wikileaks from 'the rest', and then assert that this criterion is a requirement of journalists. But since we're classifying organizations based on what they do, rather than what they don't, it's awfully hard to exclude one which solicits information, analyzes facts, and publishes stories.
More connotations of journalism are speaking truth to power and critical analysis of the situation. Wikileaks does a much better job of the former, and the NYT has abdicated the latter.